Pages

Jan 15, 2013

Weapons & Warriors: The Claymore of the Scottish

Most people these days
think of William Wallace and the movie Braveheart when they hear the word
Claymore. The sword that William Wallace used was not actually a Claymore, but
was similar. His sword was of the heavy two handed variety and may have been
related to the Claymore along some sword family tree of some kind, but it
wasn’t a Claymore.

William Wallace’s sword
has been rebuilt and preserved over the years. It is on display in Scotland,
but some historians believe only part of the sword’s blade was the original
sword of Wallace. A few hundred years can be hard on a sword. The hilt and
crossguard on William Wallace’s sword is different from the Claymore, but that
could be from its reconstruction. The part of the weapon believed as being the
original is a portion of the blade, which also verifies that it was never a Claymore.
The tip of the blade narrows towards the end to a point. The Claymore does not
narrow a whole lot until its triangular tip.

The name Claymore comes
from the Gaelic word "claidheamh mòr," which means Great-Sword. One thing that
made the Claymore stand out in comparison to other swords, including the other
types of two handed swords, was the leather wrapped ricasso that was between
the blade and the crossguard. The entire sword was long enough that the average
man could place the tip on the ground and the hilt would reach his armpit,
which is about four and a half feet.

The blade itself
averaged a length of about three and half feet. The hilt was slightly
longer than a typical broadsword to allow more comfort and control when using
two hands to wield it. The guard protecting the hilt was at an angle that
pointed away from the hilt. This was used for more than protection for the
hands on the hilt. The hilt was designed with smooth wood in the earlier years
of the Claymore, while a twisted wooden hilt with a more firm grip was
introduced later on. The pommel of the Claymore was most often a large steel
ring. The leather wrapped ricasso was about four to six inches and was used for
a better grip to control the long blade in case an enemy moved inside the long
ranged arc of the standard two hand grip. The wielder simply had to move one hand to the ricasso for better control. This ricasso is not present on
Wallace’s sword, which could have been lost in its restoration or it may never
have existed, since his sword isn’t a Claymore.

The crossguard for the
Claymore is a little unusual compared to other two handed swords. The two guards
were angled towards the tip away from the hilt and were about as long as the
ricasso. At some point they were tipped with a quatrefoil design. The
crossguard had a bonus intention in its design. Most crossguards on a sword are
merely to protect the hands of the wielder. On the Claymore, the crossguard
could also be used to hook an opponent’s weapon and with a twist of the sword they
could disarm their opponent.

The average Claymore had
a shorter blade than other two handed swords, but it was still heavy enough to
break a wooden shield or take down the horse of a charging knight. It wasn’t as
devastating as the Norsemen Daneaxe, but it was still heavy enough, and more
durable than the axe. Most Claymores weighed between 5 and 6 lbs, or 2.5 kg. It
took serious training to use the Claymore effectively. The best stance was to
hold the hilt at the waist with two hands and raise the blade up and towards the
opponent. This allowed the wielder to keep some distance between them and the
enemy and made it easier to deflect attacks and strike.

The Claymore’s weight
was enough to make it difficult to return to a safe stance. The concept of “a
great defense is a great offense” works in the case of the Claymore. The Highlanders
were the most known for using this and were crazy enough to charge into a
battle with a giant sword and try smashing through armor and shields before
waiting for the enemy to come to them on an open field. One negative issue with
the Claymore is that it is bulky enough that most men, who carried one, did not
have room to carry a shield, so were vulnerable to arrows.

Picture via Wikipedia

Wallace’s blade looks as
if it would have been lighter. Wallace would have the same reach as a Claymore,
but the lighter blade would allow him to recover it quicker than a man hold a
Claymore by the hilt, and in the hands of a trained warrior it would have been
just as dangerous. The ricasso in a way makes the Claymore more versatile and
therefore in my book, more useful than the sword of Wallace.

I don’t have any
evidence, but I’m thinking William Wallace had a special made Claymore with a
thinner blade to keep all the advantages of a huge sword that could be used in
close quarter fighting but with lighter weight to strike and recover faster
than his other Claymore wielding friends. Most of the sword on display was
rebuilt from parts of other swords, so it is always possible he had improved on
the design of the Claymore, but it was lost with him in battle. We’ll just
never know.

I hope you enjoyed this
edition of Weapons and Warriors, click here to view the entire catalog of
weapons and cultures. Thank you, see you next week.

Disclaimer

All photographs and artwork on this blog are owned by TL Jeffcoat or Steven DeVon Jones, the only exceptions being the background, book covers or movie posters linked from Photobucket, and the photos used from the WANACommons or Wikipedia which are all labeled as such. If you would like to use any of the artwork, please let TL Jeffcoat know and he will more than likely oblige.

All Anonymous comments with links to other sites will be treated as spam and removed. If you aren't a spammer, I apologize, but there has been an increase in spam activity on my comments and I don't want any readers falling to any traps. I still accept anonymous comments, but if you want it to be seen and responded to do not add a link of any kind or don't leave it as an anonymous comment, and please make sure the link is something that is related to the post or I will suspect it as spam and still remove it. Thank you.